Share this

In a Wednesday afternoon speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) called for raising the retirement age on Social Security. His willingness to tackle politically delicate entitlement programs follows his approach in New Jersey of taking on teachers’ unions and other groups.

Can Christie portray himself as a teller of difficult truths and become a credible White House candidate in 2012 or 2016? Or will his YouTube-friendly shtick soon wear thin and render him largely irrelevant in Democratic-leaning New Jersey?

This may not be politically correct, but there is an aspect to Gov. Christie's possible presidential prospects that interests me as a student of American history. He is, to say the least, a, um, very large man. The U.S. hasn't had a president who was obese since William Howard Taft (over 300 pounds) in the early 20th century. It's not just a matter of aesthetics. From Ike's heart attacks and Nixon's acute phlebitis, to Reagan's age, Bill Clinton's junk food addiction (and his post-presidential bypass) and Barack Obama's smoking habit, Americans rightly worry about their president's health and fitness.

Watch the now-famous YouTube videos of Christie telling off public employees in his own state, and especially when Christie doffs his coat. Is this someone the American public would think is up to the physical rigors and energy demands of being president of the U.S.? I'm just askin' ...

Someone has to do what he's doing. He's got guts. By now the people of his state know they have a leader who tackles the tough issues and forces them to face reality. At the same time he is a cheerleader for New Jersey's future and is guided by the promise he made in his election night speech - to be proud of their state and make New Jersey the place to raise their family and build their future. Those guiding principles will never wear thin. He's got what it takes whenever he's ready to take that message on the national road.

Having known Chris for 20 years, run against him and run with him, I feel qualified to say that he is the genuine article. Like Horton, he says what he means and he means what he says.

In New Jersey, everyone's known what needed to be done for 15 years or so, but few have had the courage to confront powerful special interests, like the teachers' union, and say so. Similarly, nationally, everyone knows that the only possible hope for economic salvation lies in scaling back the unaffordable promises this generation has made to itself, while foisting the bills off onto our kids, in the biggest example of intergenerational theft in history. If Chris is the only one to say what everyone knows, then shame on everyone else.

People my age -- 50 or so -- and younger simply will not see the benefits that our parents and grandparents saw, because it would be unconscionably selfish for us to send our kids the bill for benefits we will enjoy, but aren't willing to pay for.

Sooner or later, a national politician needs to actually lead, say the things that need to be said, tell the American people that they have a choice: tax, borrow, and spend ourselves and our kids into third world status, or act like responsible adults.

We in New Jersey led the nation in irresponsibility for eight years under Democrats who did precisely that: taxed, borrowed, and spent the state to the very brink of bankruptcy. (Alas, not a few Republicans went along for the ride) They bought votes today with our kids' wallets. Chris seems to be prepared to halt that irresponsible conduct, to scale back the promises made in our kids' names. He understands that the key to prosperity is personal liberty and personal responsibility. He understands, for instance, that Sen. Bayh was right: we cannot continually redistribute to the least fortunate (or governmental employees) resources we do not possess.

In New Jersey, a traditionally blue state, the people "get it". They understand that the day of reckoning is here. We will either scale back our costs and confront the spending interests, or the economy will collapse under the confiscatory taxes necessary to repay a mountain of debt. Chris proves that someone unafraid to speak assertedly unpopular truths can command the respect and support of the electorate. The electorate is neither as dumb, or as selfish, as some politicians seem to believe.

If even blue New Jersey understands that we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way to prosperity, and that we cannot lavish on ourselves benefits for which we expect our children to pay, there is truly hope for the nation. Chris proves that the nation wants honest politicians willing to tackle tough issues honestly. Whether he delivers the message, or someone else steps to the fore, the message will remain the same, and we need a true leader to deliver it.

The crowds are gathering under Gov. Christie's balcony. He's identified with the hottest issue in national politics and has a growing national constituency. There were good vibes for him at CPAC and he picks up statesmanship cred at AEI.

All of these planets might not be in alignment in 2016 or later. I'd tell him to go for it, vehement denials to the contrary notwithstanding.

Chris Christie was blunt, as always: “We're on a path to ruin,” he declared, if we don’t do something about overspending, including entitlement spending. Fair enough. But some paths are better than others.

For example, it’s a good idea, as Christie suggested, to raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare. Back in 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed, life expectancy was less than 62. Now, it’s up near 80. So of course adjustments should be made.

But politicians can never forget politics, defined as leaders persuading the people - as opposed to pulling a fast one behind closed doors. Those sorts of closed-doors deals, much loved by the D.C. Establishment, are not only unpopular; they are impermanent. And we might note that public opinion is strongly against raising the retirement age. By a 4:1 margin, voters say that they would rather raises taxes than tinker with Social Security or Medicare. The AEI audience wouldn’t cheer for that.

And let’s also note that even as the chattering classes are consumed with Pete Peterson-ish financial issues, other concerns vex the average American, including health concerns. That’s health they are worried about, much more than health insurance. When we go to the doctor, we want to talk about that lump, or that pain - not about health insurance. Insurance is secondary. The real issues of health care are medical, not financial. People want to be cured even more than they want to be insured.

In the Christie-ish problem-solving spirit, let’s now link up inside-the-beltway financial concerns and outside-the-beltway medical concerns. If Christie or anyone else wants actually to raise the retirement age - as opposed merely to talk about it to a think-tank audience - then a good solution is to tie a raising of the retirement age to an improvement in public health. We could start with a cure, or even an effective treatment, for Alzheimer’s. Plenty of people are infirm at 65, but if they were healthier, they could work longer, and not mind working, even as the entitlement crisis eased. And since Christie insists that he wants to stay in Trenton for a while longer, he could even see a cure effort as an economic development project for Jersey, often described as the medicine chest for the world.

No, he's not. The problem with Christie is multi-fold. For one, although his blunt style might resonate with reporters looking for juicy soundbites, but that can get old after a minute with voters who - while angry - want a bit of moderation. Plus, what might work in Jersey might not work on the national electoral stage.

Nationally, we're past the Tony Soprano paradigm. And, keeping it real, presidential contests are virtual modeling battles where voters make cosmetic determinations. Christie's weight would be a problem.
Many folks would question whether he's healthy enough to run the country. And then there's the global image issue: is that what American wants to look like?

And would he make it through a Republican primary itching for a social issues litmus test cage match? Doubtful. As far as general electorate, you have to consider a quarter of the workforce is comprised of public sector employees. Folks like Christie should consider that they vote, too. And they know how to organize. If he's thinking about national ambitions - which I doubt he is, but heads do get big after some time
- he should tone down the diatribes against government workers and learn how to work with them.

I'm one of those cats who think he won't even get a second term. But, that's just your friendly neighborhood analysis from a dude who grew up right across the bridge from the Garden State.

Yes. As is often said in the Garden State, there are politics and then there are Jersey politics. I've worked on campaigns there, and can attest that the normal rules do not apply when it comes to aisle-crossing and loyalties of the interest groups. The fact that Christie is successfully navigating these waters (oft maligned by pollution metaphors) speaks definitively to his skills. For example, his handling of the crisis in Atlantic City has gone on with the cooperation of one of the state's most effective Democrats, State Sen. Jim Whelan -- a schoolteacher and former mayor of Atlantic City.

Of note in the speech today: To quote the governor, I'm not saying he stole it from me....but the punch line about Obama's version of "Doing Big Things" relating to electric cars and rail lines -- see my blog on the SOTU.

As I wrote then, Obama risks sounding like Jimmy Carter. As the parody magazine The Onion wrote in their mock-coverage of the Carter-Reagan contest, Carter's "Let's talk better mileage" was decidedly outmatched by the Gipper's "Kill the bastards." Maybe Christie's off-the-cuff bombast rubs some folks the wrong way. But he is showing he can advance an aggressive agenda in Trenton; he articulates his message unambiguously; and he has a forceful persona that is miles away from Midwest Mitch, the Mormon Ken Doll from Massachusetts, of the star of the Palin Reality Show.

First, the "Race for the White House 2012" is not a reality show where larger-than-life personalities make for entertaining TV. Second, Gov. Christie has said that he's not a candidate for national office. Third, so-called truth-tellers wear thin in the American psyche. Plus, I continue to believe that Northeastern governors don't play well beyond our region. Milt Romney, despite his lead in straw polls, will not prove me wrong.

Of course Gov. Christie is presidential material, but Washington, D.C. needs to let him do the job he was hired to do first.

He is proud of being the governor of New Jersey, and who wouldn't be? Quit laughing...

The job is a tough one, but a dream one for someone like Christie who cut his teeth in Jersey politics, and wants to see the state succeed again. David, you call it a blue state, but I remember working there when the GOP had both houses of the state House and the governor's office.

There is a lot of work to be done, and what better guy than Christie, than a guy who can say it like it is? I mean, don't we need MORE legislators and governors who can cut through the stuff and get the job done?

The real challenge for him will be getting these tough love approaches through the Democrat-led legislature there in the Garden State.

I'd bet we see Christie do more of what he's doing now, and we see him even more regularly in four years in the lead up to 2016, after he's fixed the troubles of my beloved home state.

1) Christie's style of leadership is most refreshing and voters are responding to it in a very positive way. Call it a reaction to so much of the spin that has been emanating out of Washington and Trenton for too many years.

2) While New Jersey remains a Democratic state in many ways, it has a habit of electing Republican governors who present a clear vision and sense of direction for the state. In this regard, Christie follows in the path of Thomas Kean and Christie Todd Whitman. Both were twice elected and left a solid mark.

3) The only New Jersey governor to be elected president, Woodrow Wilson once said that politicians who thought too much about getting re-elected did not deserve to be re-elected. Substitute the words "moving up" for "re-elected" and this prescription fits Christie to a tee. If he winds up on a national ticket it will be because of his inimical style. Count on his not tempering or changing it.

4) One thing Gov. Chris Christie will not be is "irrelevant" either to what happens in New Jersey this year or who is elected president next year. He is already a big player on the national scene.

New Jersey’s Chris Christie is already blazing the trail for other governors. Before he took on the public employee unions, for example, most other elected officials – Republican and Democrat alike – were afraid to cross them for fear of invoking their wrath and suffering for it politically. Christie has shown that the arguments against them not only make sense, they are politically popular.

His call to raise the retirement age will likely have the same effect, helping to make possible a serious discussion about entitlement reform before America’s future obligations bankrupt all of us. Whether or not this makes him a credible candidate for president or vice president in some future election is not as important as the impact his rhetoric and his actions are having now. Governors across the United States are falling all over themselves to “out-Christie” Christie, meaning the advocates for the perpetual welfare state have a serious fight on their hands. Rather than making him irrelevant he may realign New Jersey.

I think he is creating a very appealing image by telling difficult truths that others are trying to avoid. And he is positioning himself perfectly for 2012 by saying that he will not be a candidate — that is, unless he is asked closer to the time of the nomination when all of the other Republicans will have chewed each other up. His decision rule, undoubtedly, will be whether or not he thinks he can win.

Jeremy MayerAssociate Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University :

Chris Christie is presidential timber, perhaps the finest candidate available to the GOP right now. If the Republicans have a collective brain, they'll nominate him. He immediately puts New Jersey into play, as well as Pennsylvania and maybe, for the first time since 1984, New York, without hurting them elsewhere. Those are states Obama must have. His rhetoric is perfectly pitched to win independents away from Obama. And his courage is just right for the times - he's the only Republican right now with the balls to take on Rush Limbaugh, which he did indirectly in this speech today. He's making serious cuts, in his state, and talking about serious solutions to entitlements nationally.

The guy is a natural. You don't have to agree with him in the slightest to see that he's going to hit the national scene like a tidal wave. Even his weight helps him come across as authentic. Why shouldn't the fattest nation on earth have an overweight president?

Gov. Christie has gained a lot of political traction by taking on.the so-called vested interests. Talking the talk and getting results are two different things. If all of his cuts raise local taxes his mission will be to naught. He is still a work in progress.

Christie needs more time to prove he is presidential timber. If the tough love programs he is pushing in New Jersey prove successful and if he is reelected to a second term, them 2016 is all his. That's a lot of "ifs". And as the saying goes if my aunt was a man she would be my uncle.

President Barack Obama and Gov. Chris Christie have something in common: they both ruled out running for president shortly before the presidential primaries began. In a January 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, then-Senator Obama was asked if he would run for president in 2008. He answered "I will not," adding that "I will serve out my full six-year term." Last November, also on Meet the Press, Gov. Christie was asked the same question about a possible presidential run. Governor Christie declared, as emphatically as possible, that he would "absolutely" not run for president in 2012.

We know now how the Obama story ended: he took back his pledge not to run and eventually won the White House. The same could conceivably happen for Gov. Christie. He could recant his pledge not to run and take a stab at the GOP nomination in 2012, and perhaps even win the race on the strength of his outsider credentials and his popularity in New Jersey, a Democratic stronghold.

However, there is one very big difference between then-Sen. Obama in 2006 and Gov. Christie today: unlike then-Sen. Obama in 2006, Gov. Christie doesn't believe he is ready to be president today. Speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday a few weeks ago in January, Christie said "You have got to believe in your heart that you're personally ready to be president, and I'm not there."

Even as a first-term senator with little national experience, Barack Obama never betrayed any uncertainty about his ability to lead the nation.

The fact that Gov. Christie is willing to whatever Wall Street and the elite media tell him does not suggest that he has strong leadership qualities. If he had strong leadership qualities, he might take a moment to look at the Social Security trustees report himself, or at least talk to someone who had.

He would discover that the program can pay 100 percent of all scheduled benefits through the year 2037 and nearly 80 percent of scheduled benefits after this date for the indefinite future. After 2037 retirees would always get a larger benefit than current retirees even if Congress never does anything.

If Mr. Christie did the sort of basic research that we would expect from someone proposing to raise the retirement age he would discover that nearly half of older workers work in physically demanding jobs. It will be difficult for these people to stay in these positions well into their sixties. The share of non-college grads in physically demanding jobs is close to 60 percent.

He would also discover that that there has been relatively little increase in life expectancy for workers in the bottom half of the wage distribution, so further increases in the retirement age (we just raised it from 65 to 67) would likely mean a shorter period of retirement for low and moderate income workers.

Christie would also discover that most middle income workers have almost nothing besides Social Security to support themselves in retirement. This is due to the fact that they don't have traditional pensions, never accumulated much money in 401(k)s and just saw much of their home equity disappear with the collapse of the housing bubble.

Unfortunately Mr. Christie shows little interest in learning about Social Security, the country's most important safety net program. He just wants to do what the Washington Post tells him. That probably means he is electable, but that doesn't suggest he will be a very good president.

No, but ask again in four years. He has even less experience than Sarah Palin, the half-term governor of Alaska. In fact, the only reason his name comes up at all is because of the weakness of the GOP field.

Raising the retirement age is appealing to privileged people who work in offices. It would be a newly imposed hardship for most American workers and families, and a big benefit cut in Social Security.

Democrats should be delighted if Christie and others in the GOP start pushing this idea. If Democrats can stick with Social Security, they will be on very popular ground. And good fiscal ground, too, because the deficit is NOT caused by Social Security,

Eighty percent of Americans -- that's right, four out of five -- want to protect Social Security and raise the payroll tax cap (and that includes three of every five self-identified tea partiers).

What is more, during a sluggish economy, when many young workers cannot find jobs, the notion of keeping oldsters in the workforce longer is perceived by regular Americans as -- well -- nuts! That is because it IS nuts.
Only disconnected elites and Wall Street lobbyists could come up with these ideas. Most Americans do not support these ideas.

We've seen this shtick before with the governator of California, no? Brash straight-talking Republican comes to the statehouse, gets lauded by the press for directness, then struggles to turn the cinematic swagger into a record of accomplishment. Perhaps Gov. Christie will be different. But as we say in my home state of Texas, it ain't called bragging if you've got the record to back it up.

People are interested in hearing honest answers these days, as opposed to the easy answers that allowed us to keep from confronting important issues for so many years. If that is a "shtick," then let's have more shticks. And let those shticks be on YouTube, so that they get the publicity they deserve. Kudos to Christie for being willing to tell some tough truths; honesty like his will do more than empty, flowery rhetoric ever could to save the Republic.

POLITICO reports on a push by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to deny all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, including for services unrelated to abortion. And the South Dakota House of Representatives is considering a bill that supporters say would protect pregnant women from attack, but critics fear could legalize the killing of abortion providers in the state.

Are we seeing the revival of abortion as a major fault line in American politics? How does this square with Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's proposed "truce" among Republicans on social issues? And what do you make of Rep. Pence's Planned Parenthood efforts and the South Dakota abortion bill?

Obviously, the Republican yahoos are not following the lead of their might-be Hoosier leader. Like cats to catnip, the extra-chromosome social conservatives just can't resist the allure of taking on a woman's right to choose whenever they hold the levers of power. Planned Parenthood has lots of Republican supporters and many Republican members of the boards of directors of the organization's many chapters around the country. My bet is that millions of moderate Republican women are shaking their heads again over their own party's right wing hijinks.

This is the media trying to create a conflict where none need exist. In this case, it’s pundits trying to pit Congressman Mike Pence — who is the prohibitive favorite to be elected governor of Indiana next year —against Indiana’s current chief, Gov. Mitch Daniels, at a time when Gov. Daniels is widely expected to launch a serious campaign for the presidency. The numbers belie any real conflict.

Ever since Ronald Reagan led the Republican Party, it’s been a GOP priority that taxpayers’ money should not fund abortions. In recent years, over one million lives are lost among unborn Americans annually. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading provider of abortions, and will not accept as an affiliate a facility that refuses to provide abortions. According to their own reports, in 2008 Planned Parenthood performed 324,008 abortions out of 1.21 million total performed nationwide.

Also at a time when tea party voters take to the streets to protest the gross waste and profligate spending in Washington, D.C., it’s ludicrous to suggest that subsidizing the abortion industry is a national imperative. Planned Parenthood received $363 million in state and federal money in 2008, roughly $75 million of which is Title X funding that would be redirected to other services by Congressman Pence’s bill.

As to the other services that Planned Parenthood provides, its own records reveal that for every adoption referral, they perform approximately 135 abortions. There are many other organizations that provide prenatal care and women’s health screenings, many of which are worthier recipients of public support. Besides, in both 2007 and 2008, Planned Parenthood made more than $60 million in profits each year, so they’re hardly hurting for cash.

Instead of conflict, refusing to give Americans’ tax money to Planned Parenthood is a perfect example of where social conservatives and economic conservatives find common ground. Speaking as a native of Indiana, it’s certainly something on which a supermajority of Hoosiers — and a supermajority of all Americans, for that matter — can agree.

Focus for a moment on the title: “Abortion wars flaring anew.” When liberals took a breather from ignoring what is in the Constitution (the second, ninth and tenth amendments) and poked a hole in the Constitution by imagining things that are not there - Roe v. Wade - this did not create “abortion wars.” Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars flowing to Planned Parenthood didn’t have anything “flaring anew.”

But now that Republicans have majorities in the legislature and the governorship in 21 states plus Puerto Rico and a Republican House of Representatives, legislation to end federal funding of abortion businesses is a sign of “wars.”

There was no lack of civility when Obama was touting his enemies list. But when the GOP won in November 2010 - incivility - read “opposition to big government’s agenda” became a “problem.”

Rather than “flair” any conflicts there is now an opportunity to unite Americans who oppose all or most abortions and those who oppose government spending in areas not mentioned in the Constitution. A strong majority of both Republicans and independents oppose taking money from taxpayers, many of whom have moral objections to abortion, and spending it on the promotion and provision of abortion.

Pence’s legislation to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood is a uniter, not a divider. Here Mitch Daniels should follow Pence in supporting legislation that creates not a “truce” among Republicans on a social issue, but an alliance for progress.

Although the vast majority of Americans prefer abortion to be legal safe and rare, the "God guns and gays" Republicans have launched a multi-pronged assault on women's rights. From the congressional Republicans ludicrous "forcible rape" redefinition to a South Dakota bill (HR 1171) that would legalize killing abortion doctors as “justifiable homicide" to the attacks against family planners like Planned Parenthood, the right wing extremists have every intention of invading privacy rights and criminalizing women's choices. Common sense tells us that bad actors should be disciplined but institutions should not suffer for the actions of a few. For instance, we don't see Republicans looking to defund the entire Pentagon despite its terrible track record of mistreating rape victims as detailed in the latest veterans lawsuit.

The Republican attack against Planned Parenthood is part of a larger de-branding campaign against center left institutions in America. From language to pranks to funding fights we know the anatomy of an attack: first, smear the center-left institution by using derogatory terms; then take an anecdote and use it to define the whole; then replay the video and the smear across the conservative echo chamber; then act to criminalize or defund the institution; then campaign tying every vulnerable candidate in a swing district to the smear.

Consider convicted felon Tom DeLay (R-Texas) popularizing the term Democrat (emphasis on last syllable) to undermine the Democratic party in everyday parlance; the selectively edited video misrepresenting Shirley Sherrod designed to undercut the NAACP; and the video pranks by opponents who used to stand on street corners outside clinics with pictures of fetuses in jars and now enter the clinics with hidden cameras in an ever intrusive effort to deter women from exercising their family planning rights. What do they have in common? They each target a center-left institution and try to bring it down with the same pattern of smear, publish, repeat, legislate, campaign. We don't know who is next but we can be sure the pattern will be the same. That is why so many center-left coalitions must speak with one voice to deconstruct the smears and lift up the institutions that promote American civil rights and privacy rights.

Janine TurnerActress, Constitutional Educator and Host of The Janine Turner Radio Show :

How does one make a truce on social issues? Human beings are social creatures with an innate sense of right and wrong - Moral Law, as C.S. Lewis states. Varying moral perspectives will always prevail and thus stimulate debate. In America we are blessed with the freedom to express one’s ideologies and beliefs. What gives elected officials the power to dictate to the American people that they should turn off their consciences? In a Republic, congressmen and women, who are sworn to represent their constituents, should not deny them just that – representation - on all issues.

Common sense and prudence should factor into such actions. Take, for example, the fact that Planned Parenthood - an organization that is obviously, as proven by a recent behind the scenes video, aiding in the victimization of young girls - is largely supported by taxpayer money. One may agree or disagree with Planned Parenthood’s actions and whether they should or should not be supported by government funds. Congressman Mike Pence, disagrees, along with many other organizations such as The Susan B. Anthony List and Concerned Women for America, and is trying to stop federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

Another aspect to this debate is a glaring bias. Where is the uniformity of federal funding for pro-life organizations? If the federal government is going to fund an entity that is pro-abortion, then it should equally fund an entity that is pro-life. How does one call for a truce on social issues, which would obviously include abortion, when the statutes are inequitable? As James Madison said, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire.” Faction is the moral compass that maintains honest measures.

In a Republic there must be freedom to seek the truth. Where is the justice for the unborn child?

It is time once and for all to end taxpayer subsidies of Planned Parenthood. As our ongoing, three-year investigation has revealed, Planned Parenthood is not safe for underage girls and young women. Our most recent investigation uncovered a willingness on the part of Planned Parenthood staff and supervisors to aid and abet sex trafficking and exploitation of minors as young as 14 and 15. It further revealed Planned Parenthood skirting parental consent laws to perform secret abortions on underage girls. Past investigations have shown Planned Parenthood failing to report obvious incidents of statutory rape, performing abortions on underage girls, and targeting donations for abortions of African American babies. What member of Congress sees these activities as worthy of taxpayer subsidies?

Americans are outraged by the abuse and an overwhelming majority has for years consistently opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. As the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood receives one-third of its budget from the federal government, i.e. the American taxpayer. Last year alone Planned Parenthood received more than $350 million in taxpayers subsidies. Since 2002, Planned Parenthood has received billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. In 2008-2009, Planned Parenthood performed more than 650,000 abortions and recorded profits of $63.4 million. This is outrageous given Planned Parenthood is legally organized as a "non-profit."

Ideology and politics aside, what member of Congress would want to vote for taxpayer funding of an organization willing to engage in this type of activity? For those who do, it will be telling to see how they explain their vote to constituents back home.

Rep. Pence’s attack on Planned Parenthood exposes what we’ve always known. The same politicians who want to outlaw abortion also oppose birth control. Now that the new anti-choice House leadership has made attacks on contraception a priority, we will make sure that more and more Americans find out just how out touch their priorities are.

Opponents of the push to deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers will try to inflame the debate by characterizing the push as an attack on the Supreme Court's discovery of a right to abortion. But the issue goes much deeper and is perfectly generalizable: it's a push to get government out of one more controversial area of life.

Most modern liberals fail to grasp -- or ignore -- a fundamental principle of political theory, namely, that the more we do collectively, the more liberty is restricted and passions are inflamed. That's why classical liberals asked government to provide only "public goods" like national defense, law enforcement, and clean air. Abortions are private goods (for some). Under current law, women are free to seek them from willing providers. And others are free to assist those who cannot afford an abortion. But no one should be compelled to provide or pay for another's abortion. It's a matter, quite simply, of freedom.

This wave of anti-choice bills is hardly a “revival.” The right wing has never lost focus on its ongoing war on women, including eliminating access to critical reproductive health services - starting with those serving the neediest. The abysmal “justifiable homicide” bill being proposed in South Dakota and the latest attack on Planned Parenthood are the latest iterations of a sustained campaign by the religious right and its allies in Congress to undercut women’s judgment and undermine their rights. The current campaign against reproductive health care providers, for instance, heated up as early as 2008, when over 50 religious right leaders formed a coalition to “defeat Planned Parenthood.”

As long as right-wing politicians can make the case, however ridiculous, that attacks on women’s health are also fiscally responsible, they will try to have it both ways. In December, Pence argued that high unemployment and tough economic times were reason enough to defund what he called a “multi-billion dollar business.” This reasoning, of course, ignores the fact that high unemployment and a poor economy make the need for affordable health care even greater.

The loss of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations would be an enormous blow to the millions of women who depend on their services - including affordable contraception, STD testing, and cancer screening - especially in tough economic times.

Mike Pence is exactly right to cut off Planned Parenthood from federal funding.

The overwhelming majority of Americans – pro-lifers and pro-abortioners alike – think it is wrong to use federal dollars to fund abortions. And they are exactly right.

And any money that goes to Planned Parenthood – or any facility that executes abortions – is money for abortions. For the coin goes into one Planned Parenthood pot – there are not two firewalled bank accounts labeled “Abortions” and “Everything Else.”

Every dollar they receive makes their performance of abortions easier, regardless of the intended destination of the coin and its provider.

It’s like labor unions promising your dues won’t be used for political purposes – they get one big heap of money from their conscripted masses, and it is impossible to tell from whence the tens of millions of dollars of Democrat political contributions came.

So to paraphrase Jesse Jackson, when it comes to Planned Parenthood funding – end it, don’t mend it.

As a woman who has a uterus, it angers me when men decide what funds the federal government can give to me, for my choice, my body and my legal right. Abortion has been legal since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe vs. Wade. The politicians and the pro-lifers need to face the facts, that overturning Roe vs. Wade is the only way to reverse the legalization of the practice of abortion. And only when that is done, can we begin to argue about stopping the funding of such.

In Indiana, Congressman Pence isn't just on the attack against abortion and the funding of abortions, he's on the attack against Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood isn't an abortion mill. It provides counseling, birth control and other gynecological services for women who most likely aren't insured by their employer or can't afford insurance.

These Republican lawmakers kill me. They don't want you to have access to birth control at a facility such as Planned Parenthood ( for removing their funding will inevitably shut them down) but they don't want to pay for your health care through federal funding. They don't want you to abort your baby, but they also don't want to pay for your baby through programs such as welfare that the right deem as socialist. They're pro-life, but not if your baby's sick as they want to remove the coverage for that child's Prue existing condition. They're pro-life, but if your child isn't a citizen, well, you know... And in South Dakota, they're considering a bill that they claim would protect pregnant women from attack.

Listen, when you have crazy's on the street corner with their signs, pushing and shoving pregnant women on and off sidewalks outside of clinics, those pregnant women need protection, from the pro-life protesters. This bill could actually support killing those who provide the abortions, while trying to cloak itself as a protector of the pregnant. You want to protect a pregnant woman? Give her your seat on the bus or subway. Fund her and her baby's health care costs. And PROTECT her choice.

Republicans won control of the House, in part, because they said Democrats were preoccupied with health care and did not focus on jobs. Pot: meet kettle. As numerous media outlets have reported, in their first month in power, House Republicans have not focused on job creation but have instead been obsessed with health care and anti-abortion bills; they even tried to redefine the definition of rape. With his focus attacking Planned Parenthood, Congressman Pence is the leading example of that obsession.

As the Associated Press reported: “… At best, House Republicans seem to be sending mixed or diluted messages about job creation while they promote social issues that appeal to conservative activists.” That’s not the way to govern.

And now, with their proposed deep cuts in discretionary spending, Republicans would undermine economic growth that could cripple our fragile recovery. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that the Republican budget could destroy more than 800,000 public and private sector jobs. Sadly, Speaker Boehner’s reaction to this was: “so be it.”

The last election and polls since then are clear: Americans want both parties to work together to address the serious challenges facing our nation, from the need for increased job growth to a serious effort to address our massive deficits. Unfortunately, with their fixation on repealing the health care reform bill and restricting women’s reproductive health, the Republicans so far are not living up to that challenge. But there is still time to change course and engage in serious discussions with the President and other Democrats.

We are seeing abortion coming back as a major fault line in the Republican Party. The culturally conservative right feels left out with all the emphasis on fiscal issues and the indifference of the tea party movement toward the pro-life tradition in GOP. They realize in fact most of the libertarian right actually is pro-choice and doesn't want the government involved in such personal issues.

Attempting to entirely defund Planned Parenthood again puts the Republicans on the wrong side of the demographic curve in America. This time the harm is done in the suburbs, but the gay-bashing that severely offends younger voters is sure to follow.

Michele L. SwersGeorgetown University Associate Professor of American Government :

The abortion issue never left. In hard economic times the average voter is more focused on economics. However, the activists that constitute the bases of both parties remain just as committed.

While Clinton won the presidency with his theme of "its the economy stupid" Clinton quickly moved to overturn the Mexico City policy about international family planning money. Democrats in Congress tried and failed to repeal the Hyde amendment and to pass a Freedom of Choice Act to codify Roe v. Wade but they were successful in passing FACE (Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances).

With a Republican president George W. Bush and Republican-controlled Congress conservatives were able to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act but failed to get a bill to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines to receive an abortion. Bush fulfilled another priority of social conservatives, appointing more social conservatives to the Supreme Court and appellate and district courts.

The balance of power in Congress is currently in favor of pro-life legislators and that is why Nancy Pelosi tried to steer clear of social issues when she ran the House. She knew she did not have the votes to pursue a strongly pro-choice agenda and did not want to split her caucus. Indeed Pelosi, a strongly pro-choice representative was forced to accept the Stupak amendment restricting access to abortion as part of the price to achieve health care reform.

The Republican party is a mix of fiscal and social conservatives and current efforts to further restrict abortion are aimed at pleasing social conservatives ahead of the 2012 elections. Beyond the politics of abortion, another unfortunate consequence of these battles is that the agenda space taken up by abortion politics means that Congress does not devote any attention to other important family issues such as child care and family and medical leave in a society where two parent working families are now the norm and the aging of the baby boomer population means that many families will face the challenge of caring for children and their aging parents.

Voters installed Republican legislators in Congress and state legislatures across the country to fix the economy and the GOP responds by limiting abortion and the reproductive choices that women have. The same thing happened to Democrats after they took over in 2009. Voters kept listening to the Democrats in the hope that they would be talking about jobs. But all Americans heard from Democrats in 2010 was talk about health care. If the GOP keeps this up, they will suffer the same fate in 2012 that befell Democrats in 2010.

The GOP attack on women is another example of the split in the GOP between establishment Republicans and the extremists in the party. The Republican establishment is trying to keep a lid on the culture wars but John Boehner and other Republican leaders clearly have little control over the religious conservatives or the tea partiers. The right wing is the tail that wags the GOP dog.

I'm sure the religious conservatives are in their glory. But the rapture will be short lived if the GOP doesn't do some discipline. John Boehner has his work cut out for him.

Yesterday, the DCCC and the DSCC sent out several emails with the headings "outrageous," "Don't be fooled" and "Protect Women's Health" with missives written by Reps. Diana DeGette and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as well as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. At the same time emails from the American Family Association and the Family Research Council last week highlighted how Congress was taking steps toward ending abortion.

The skirmishes have already started if both parties are lucky abortion will reemerge as a major fault line. Abortion is a relatively safe issue for politicians to divide on. While surveying Americans again and again people know where they stand on the issue, and easily know where their member of Congress stands on the issue. This is a much safer issue to debate and disagree on than say the more complicated issues of entitlement reform, budget cuts, and an economic downturn.

Mitch Daniels's idea of a truce is an interesting one, but it's not going to happen. This past weekend he warned that "Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers". Yet, for the Christian Right there is no issue more important than abortion. To ask them to forsake their stance on this issue is at best a pipe-dream. While Daniels is pleading for a truce, other contenders for the GOP presidential nomination are building up and strengthening their pro-life credentials.

The push by Rep. Mike Pence to deny all federal funding to Planned Parenthood and the South Dakota House of Representatives consideration of a bill that some fear could legalize the killing of abortion providers are examples of promoters of such positions having a broader base of support. This broader base comes from the sweep of conservatives into federal and state legislative seats this last election. These bills do not represent abortion becoming the new fault line in American politics but they do signal change in the position of the fulcrum.

On the one hand, access to abortion is not as critical an issue for younger women who are generally supportive of "progressive" policies. For many women, improved birth control methods have rendered the abortion issue moot. Interestingly, the salience of the abortion issue is now typically reflective of age. This division has provided people who wish to ban abortion or render the medical procedure illegal an opening.

The people who embrace the so-called right to life movement are not divided. But how far they will be able to move their own agenda remains unclear. I imagine they will advance their cause partly because it overlaps with other priorities. For example, they may be able to reduce federal funding simply because of increased concern, if not panic, over federal spending.

Are we seeing the revival of abortion as a major fault line in American politics? Of course we are! And it’s both a dangerous and a politically foolish move on the part of Republicans, who are misreading the American public’s frustration with jobs and the economy.

Planned Parenthood, for example, provides primary care to women and in some cases the only primary care they get. That doesn’t bother them of course, since they also want to defund community health centers and allow doctors who perform abortions to be shot. Exaggeration? I wish. But references to Terri Schiavo are well-placed, and a reminder of why these folks got thrown out last time.

So this focus on reproductive rights has what to do with jobs, exactly? Exactly nothing. And Republicans will have to answer to it come the next election... a presidential election with many more people than 2010 at the ballot box.

In the midterm elections, Republicans faulted Obama for spending too much time on health care reform and promised to focus laser-like on jobs. On winning the House majority, what issue did they tackle first? Hmmn...health care reform. As for jobs, I'm sure voters will understand that abortion is at the root of our continuing high unemployment.

The increased attention to abortion is the result of the Republicans' success in the 2010 election. Conservative Republicans always expand their anti-abortion efforts after election victories. In addition, these anti-abortion proposals are part of two debates among conservatives. The first is the debate between conservatives who always want to focus on social issues and those who want to concentrate on budget and economic issues.

The second group believes that conservative Republicans can maintain more unity and gain more public support by emphasizing the economy and government spending. The second issue is the ongoing debate between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. Social conservatives claim that social policy should be at the center of conservatism. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that many of the policies of social conservatives violate conservative principles because these policies expand government.

Nick Wilson (guest)
TX:

While I am personally agnostic on the abortion issue, I oppose forcing taxpayers to pay for an action that half of them consider to be murder. I also oppose forcing taxpayers to pay for unnecessary wars many consider mass slaughter of civilians. We should restructure our tax system to where people only pay for the government programs they actually support. We work for months each year to fund taxes, so I have no problem with voting by tax form.

Rod Rodriguez (guest)
MD:

No man has the right to impose laws or enact legislation on a woman's reproductive system or impose health care restrictions.
This is the province of women.
Making any law to allow killing a doctor because he performs a service that may be crucial to the woman's health or survival is hypocritical.
Abortion is a personal issue and one that can only be made by the person it affects most directly...the woman.

Valerie Green (guest)
FL:

This seems so amazingly short sighted, is it unknown to people that Planned Parenthood provides family planning support to the poor? Contraceptives?
Exactly what do people think happens to children born to people who don't want them, can't afford them?
Does anyone realize that desperate people may search out back-alley abortions again?
I doubt this culture war will include funds for an increase in child care for the poor.

Mike Gorman (guest)
OH:

Dworkin, you are wrong yet again. The Republicans did not get thrown out of office the last time over abortion. They were thrown out because they spent money like democrats. You mention Terry Schiavo and I am not sure why. She was not taken off a machine and allowed to die she was not allowed food and water. Liberals like you would throw someone in prison if they stopped feeding a dog or a horse and allowed it to die but a person is different?

Jim Wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

Maybe the Republicans mean these early, duplicative abortion votes as a little red meat for their extremist right wing base, to offset the bitter disappointment the extremists are going to suffer as the budget wars play out. Since eliminating funding for public broadcasting would cut $500 million, if they vote 1,000 times to do that same thing they can tell their base that they tried to cut $500 billion. Anything is possible in voodoo economics.

J P (guest)
GA:

It's amazing to me that the people who yell "Hands off my uterus" are ok with government running health care.

Matt Shedor (guest)
IL:

Personally, abortion rights are not my fight. However, I find it curious that some people in the arena find the Republican's actions so distasteful, when this whole thing stems from a sting operation in which Planned Parenthood was found to be giving 14 year old girls abortions, advising pimps how to get them done, etc.. where is the outrage over this? to me, that is despicable, criminal, unethical behavior.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

Radio host Leslie Marshall talks about "her" choice, "her" body and "her" legal right - but notice how she doesn't mention using "her" money? She also said the government doesn't want you to abort your baby, but at the same time doesn't want to pay to raise your baby. If it's your choice, your body, your legal right and your baby - how about making it YOUR responsibility? How's that for a choice?

james cannalte (guest)
IL:

I'm amused by all the "attack on women" accusations by pro-choicers in this debate. Only problem is this: The core strength of the modern pro-life movement is women.The "men want to control women" tactic worked in the past. But it works no longer as more and more women of all ages are rising up to declare how wrong abortion is. And leading the way are the many women who've had abortions and want to spare others their pain.

Sandy O'Seay (guest)
FL:

Abortion is not a "social issue." It is the killing of unborn children. If it is not this, then what is it?

Linda Conley (guest)
OR:

In NRO Greg Pfunstein on 11-18-10 writes of a young pregnant woman in need of a car seat; she spots a Planned Parenthood and explains that she is too poor to afford a car seat for her baby. PP suggest that while they cannot give her a car seat if she signs a waiver stating she is in psychological distress, she can have a late-term abortion. What? Planned Parenthood depends on abortions to stay solvent; stop using our tax dollars to pay for them!

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.